Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Coaching philosophy concern


Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Recommended Posts

Something was said in Steve Wilks Q&A that has me concerned and I believe it has to do with Ron's overall coaching philosophy.  

 

He stated something along the lines of; were not going to try and out-scheme our opponents.   

 

He said this like it was meant to be a comforting stance.   It really got me thinking about our coaching staff and their overall philosophy.   Does Ron not emphasize individually tailored game plans based on an opponents strengths and weaknesses?  IMO,  it would explain a lot about our predictably and lack of in-game adjustments.   Does that statement concern you or am I reading too much into it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, csx said:

What is the quote? I don't see it on the Steve Wilks Q&A

Sorry the quote came from his press conference.  I am at work, so I can't find the exact moment.  If you have the time, feel free to let me know when and the exact quote and I will update the OP

http://www.panthers.com/media-vault/videos/Wilks-Im-ready-to-step-into-this-role/2faf748f-6d02-412b-a2dd-8819959a5888

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I've always thought that we won more based on talent than doing anything to exploit the opponents weaknesses. I think that is why we are so damn inconsistent at times. When other teams figure something out or in some cases get lucky guessing right, we have no answer. In 2015, we had enough takeaways and Cam made enough throws that it worked, but in 2016, almost the same team gets hit by injuries and doesn't get the luck and we finish last in the division.

exactly, 2015 was because of hurney and gman.  Ron and staff were along for the ride.

 

ron is the antithesis of belichick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Yep, and unfortunately, the one area in 2016 where we actually seemed to adjust and do better was defense after the bye and our DC is now gone. Some was health (we did lose Kuechly for 6 of the last 10 and Addison for a few), i.e. having Bradberry, Johnson and Worley playing CB instead of  Bene, Teddy and Sanchez made a big difference as witnessed in the Atlanta/NO games the second time around. Also, the scheming that Ealy mentioned that they worked on during the by helped us go from little pass rush to among the top sack teams. Our offense didn't adjust at all.

I really have very little confidence in our coaching and honestly, unless Gettleman knocks it out of the park in FA and the draft, I'd be worried about getting back to the top based on comments like that. It shows me that evolve and get better turns into Shula's request for more talent to be able to maintain the #1 scoring offense. Not being able to out-scheme leaves very little margin for error and gets you a loss in the Super Bowl.

Do the Pats out-scheme people, or does Belichick acquire smart players that fit his scheme, observe tendencies, and use specific players to exploit specific things that he sees as weaknesses in opponents' schemes from week to week? There is a difference, even if subtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpreted that statement as, "We're not going to get cute with fancy schemes." I don't think it's necessary to be flashy if everyone keeps their assignments and ACTUALLY TACKLES THE BALL CARRIER with consistency. We've used plenty of creative schemes on defense, and we have the smartest MLB in the NFL, but that hasn't been the problem. The problem has been poor tackling and guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's fundamental stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PanthersBigD said:

I interpreted that statement as, "We're not going to get cute with fancy schemes." I don't think it's necessary to be flashy if everyone keeps their assignments and ACTUALLY TACKLES THE BALL CARRIER with consistency. We've used plenty of creative schemes on defense, and we have the smartest MLB in the NFL, but that hasn't been the problem. The problem has been poor tackling and guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's fundamental stuff. 

Yeah, the feeling that I left away with, despite thinking that perhaps Wilks was just being bad-ass, is that players are going to have to execute their assignments, and if they don't, then they won't see the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • We've got another viral Panthers song The dab is back Jags Week 1, Ohio State National Title, JLo got divorced...   Nature is healing, it's Super Bowl time
    • Its too late for that.  Time has run out.  You dont give him a ext if he plays "decent".  He played "decent" at the end of last year and look what happened.  
    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
×
×
  • Create New...